http://nasascam.bravehost.com/The ravings of yet another tin foil hat wearing lunatic (pun intended). In it we find gems like:
“The Moon’s surface was, as we were told, very dry and dusty. If that be the case then why do those footprints show up so boldly. The only substance that would leave footprints showing that boldly would be damp sand, and that’s what it probably is.”
Damp sand! You read that right.
But wait!How Michael. J. Tuttle faked the Apollo Moon pictures. If you assume that these people are taking themselves seriously and are such deep thinking scientists and engineers who can penetrate the details of the greatest hoax in human history, why are they unable to see the flaws in their own ideas?
A common proof of a hoaxed landing is that the cross hairs present (known as fiducials or reticules) on the Apollo photographs often disappear behind objects.
The explanation is simple: the bright reflection of a light object in front of the thin black line of the cross hair can overpower it, making it disappear.
You can find more detail on this at the following sites:
Some handy link on Apollo and the Apollo Hoaxers to get you started.
http://www.apolloarchive.com/ – an online reference source and repository of digital images pertaining to the historic manned lunar landing program.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/diagrams/apollo.html – NASA archive technical diagrams.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj – The Apollo Lunar Surface Journal
http://www.ehartwell.com/LM//index.htm – Lunar Module assembly and testing.
Anti Apollo Hoax Sites
http://www.apollo-hoax.co.uk/homepage.html – an eclectic collection of anti hoax material.
http://www.clavius.org/ – an organization of amateurs and professionals devoted to the Apollo program and its manned exploration of the moon
Pro Apollo Hoax Sites
Instead of working I came across the delightful site ufo-aliens.co.uk with a section devoted to the Apollo Moon landings, which they believed were hoaxed - it’s full of spurious data, bad science and astonishing stupidity. The site it belongs to appears to be run by the usual tin foil hat wearing paranoiacs that are so plentiful on the internet.
The highpoint of the article on the hoaxed Apollo Moon landings are 33 points concerning the validity of the aforementioned landing which they claim need to be answered. Over time I intend to refute all 33 of them, using fully cited data from reputable sources (something the authors of the aforementioned article seem either unwilling or unable to do).
So, Apollo fans keep watching the skies…..